This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Originally Posted by Agent Ferris

Failed State =/= Anarcho Capitalism.

No actually you don't, you can still have voluntary private police forces and courts. The rights of collective and individualistic self defense would not be abridged. You don't need a state to determine that someone has violated the non-aggression principle by perpetrating fraud, violating contract, raiding villages etc.

A voluntary police and court would be so open to corruption and power abuse, it would probably be more like a mafia. And how would these courts have any power if they had no basis for enforcement, if there's no gov't no one can make me listen to whatever the court says. A court exists to judge people's actions against laws and force its will on others, thats called a government.
While collective and individual self-defense would still be allowed, since there's no gov't obviously, but you'd have a hard time convincing me its more efficient to constantly be defending yourself from other people, not to mention other states, rather than have a police or military.

Actually you do need a state to decide who has violated non-aggression principles, or has committed fraud, contract violation, etc. If you have a system which punishes people for these actions, then you have laws against them, then you have a government, that is the exact definition of one. The definition of sovereignty is a monopoly on violence in a particular area and via this monopoly of violence the gov't can make and enforce laws, this is exactly what you are talking about here.

You are arguing that a gov't doesn't need to exist to monitor people because people can just form a gov't to monitor themselves.

Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.

Last Seen

09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM

Lean

Undisclosed

Posts

4,324

Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Originally Posted by Wiseone

A voluntary police and court would be so open to corruption and power abuse, it would probably be more like a mafia.

Why would it be any more open than a private police or court system which is already like the mafia except that there's only one crime family in charge which you know as the state which has granted for itself a monopoly of the use of force which it uses for armed robbery every day in the form of taxation.

And how would these courts have any power if they had no basis for enforcement, if there's no gov't no one can make me listen to whatever the court says.

It would function mostly the same as a public court system, if you were guilty of a criminal type offense then the voluntary police force would arrest you and throw you into a privately owned prison or jail which we already have to a large extent. If it was a civil type offense I would portend that it would be handled the same as any other civil type case. You can't be arrested for refusing to pay a debt, you can't be arrested for failing to pay up in a lawsuit etc, in fact about the only thing you can be arrested for refusing to pay is taxes. The only difference here is there would only be one overarching law and that would be to not violate the non-aggression principle.

A court exists to judge people's actions against laws and force its will on others, thats called a government.

No it would be different from the state in that there wouldn't be a single source for this authority for the use of force which the state assumes it has. Moreover, payment for these services would be offered on strictly voluntary grounds.

While collective and individual self-defense would still be allowed, since there's no gov't obviously, but you'd have a hard time convincing me its more efficient to constantly be defending yourself from other people, not to mention other states, rather than have a police or military.

Oh I would say you're quite right it would be much less efficient, you would have no more people rotting in prison for 20+ years who have never in their life violated the non-aggression principal in that they have never harmed or violated the natural rights of anyone and as to the military we currently have an all volunteer army which due to it being controlled by state often finds itself in violation of the non-aggression principle.

Actually you do need a state to decide who has violated non-aggression principles, or has committed fraud, contract violation, etc.

No you could have a private court determine these things, we already have private arbitration in this country for just these type of situations.

If you have a system which punishes people for these actions, then you have laws against them, then you have a government, that is the exact definition of one.

You wouldn't need statutory law, all you would need is to bring the two parties in front of a private arbitrator who would determine if either was in violation of the non-aggression principle.

For example fraud would be a violation of that principle in that it would violate that persons right to property, under anarcho-capitalism one of the highest principle is self ownership so murder, battery, rape etc would likewise fall under a property crime. Sentences would be handed out based on reasonable guidelines set forth using community standards which would in time create precedent.

The definition of sovereignty is a monopoly on violence in a particular area and via this monopoly of violence the gov't can make and enforce laws, this is exactly what you are talking about here.

You are arguing that a gov't doesn't need to exist to monitor people because people can just form a gov't to monitor themselves.

Except that in the contractual society found in anarcho-capitalism, it is the individual and not the state which is the sovereign, under the anarcho-capitalist model each individual has the right of self ownership, the state has no right to force them to do anything. No other individual has the right one to force another to do anything unless they violate that persons property rights or a contractual agreement entered into voluntarily by both parties. The punishments for the latter would actually be found in the contracts themselves.

Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.

Last Seen

09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM

Lean

Undisclosed

Posts

4,324

Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Originally Posted by faminedynasty

Capitalism requires increasing state intervention and the continual expansion of the bureaucracy of the executive to survive. These are features inherent to it.

Why does capitalism require the state? Corporations that would have failed in a free market might get bailed out by the state through the theft of the general populace, however, without that intervention capitalism would survive and would actually prosper without the competition hindering corporatist system.

Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

You canont say there is no state or gov't while at the same time saying there should be courts, police, laws, and taxes. I don't care if the group running all these things and the systems involved is called a corporation, its still a government. And worse than its a dictatorship as a company president is not answerable to the people that he's enforcing these laws over.

Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Capitalism is the defacto state of any economy where people are not forced to do things, beyond the bare essentials

It requires no government for someone to trade their surplus wheat for someones surplus lumber

A government can however make such transactions more efficient by creating and maintaining the transportation system to get the wheat to the people with the lumber and the lumber to the people with the wheat. It can also make trading more efficient, as bartering is quite inefficient. Money is a very efficient means of trading, as people can use it to buy the actual things they need rather then haggle with multiple groups in order to get what they want or need

A government can also ensure an effective dispute resolution system (civil law) which encourages longer term contracts to be signed and honoured. Without which it would be harder and generally more wastefull to resolve contract disputes.

Overall while capitalism does not require a government to exist and function, it certainly will be better off with a government to provide a fair number of services

Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

I view the relationship between government and economic system as symbiotic. Capitalism as a form of economic system, especially a non laissez-faire system with regulation and the like, requires some form of government to enforce the rule of law.

A more interesting question to me is "Does a liberal constitutional republic require a capitalist economic system to exist and function?"

Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

The govt is there to protect justice.

"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.

Last Seen

09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM

Lean

Undisclosed

Posts

4,324

Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain

A government can however make such transactions more efficient by creating and maintaining the transportation system to get the wheat to the people with the lumber and the lumber to the people with the wheat.

And why wouldn't a private enterprise (probably the lumber company itself) see fit to create its own road system?

It can also make trading more efficient, as bartering is quite inefficient. Money is a very efficient means of trading, as people can use it to buy the actual things they need rather then haggle with multiple groups in order to get what they want or need

This too can be done with private banks, it used to be that in this country banks would print their own paper currency, currency used to simply be a receipt to be used to reclaim the gold held by the bank but now we have what is known as a fiat currency in which the currency isn't really worth the paper its printed on:

"Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative." -- Murray Rothbard

A government can also ensure an effective dispute resolution system (civil law) which encourages longer term contracts to be signed and honoured. Without which it would be harder and generally more wastefull to resolve contract disputes.

I don't see why a private arbiter as we currently have already would be any less efficient, in fact I can see reasons why it would be more efficient as the private sector is almost always more efficient than government bureaucracies.

Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.

Last Seen

09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM

Lean

Undisclosed

Posts

4,324

Re: Is Capitalism require government to exist and function?

Originally Posted by reefedjib

I view the relationship between government and economic system as symbiotic. Capitalism as a form of economic system, especially a non laissez-faire system with regulation and the like, requires some form of government to enforce the rule of law.

A more interesting question to me is "Does a liberal constitutional republic require a capitalist economic system to exist and function?"

I believe it does unless you can think of a Liberal Democracy which has existed without being capitalist (rather a mixed economy). I believe that this is because without inherent property rights it is impossible to maintain liberty, even in these mixed economies we still have limited self ownership leading to limited freedom but in actual socialist states (eg Cuba not Canada) the concept of individual property rights is thrown by the wayside so certainly self ownership would be out of the question.